"Clinton Heylins Van bio came out about five years AFTER that New Biography track was originally released so its unlikely to about that particular book."

According to wiki: "New Biography" was inspired by Brian Hinton's biography, Celtic Crossroads, written in 1996. The song's lyrics voice Morrison's complaints of celebrity and "books about his life and more precisely 'so-called friends' who chose to spill inside information and memories to biographers."

Thank you for this, it had obviously nothing to do with Clinton Heylin.

She was not on the tour to the best of my knowledge. That said, our crew had little to no contact with the back up singers, and I was never on their bus. I see where people might be getting their information online, as she was "technically" listed as a member of the Queens of Rhythm on that tour, but I can't imagine any way that somebody could hide an essentially 1 1/2 year old baby on a grueling, lengthy tour like that, though at this point, there's probably nothing I wouldn't put past him - lol.

Some questions cross my mind: Would she have gone out on the road and left the baby back home? Why would the costumer be bringing the baby clothes to Bob? Why wouldn't she just deliver them to the back-up singers' bus and give them directly to the baby's mother? I was under the impression at the time that the clothes were to be sent "back home" after Bob's approval. Surely he would have spent a whole lot more time with the backup singers if she had been there, especially to see the baby. If I were to speculate, and this is purely speculation: I could imagine a scenario in which she may have been left on the payroll for Temples In Flames - and maybe even a couple of the earlier tours - as a courtesy while she was having to stay home raising their infant daughter, and this might be what leads to the faulty conclusion that she was there. I don't believe she was, but I am willing to stand corrected.

If there is absolute proof somewhere that she was on the tour - and I just looked for it online and can't find it - I will do my best to correct a second edition. But, one thing is true for sure, if she was on the European tour, I was certainly unaware of it.

Oh, FFS there are bootleg videos of the 1987 tour with Carol Dennis.

Last edited by LeftBanke on Wed May 25th, 2016, 22:49 GMT, edited 2 times in total.

I'll have to track down a vhs copy. I would love a laserdisc rip of this. I think it was on Laserdisc.

A quick google search displays that Hard to Handle was also a James Cagney film. I'm sure this isn't a coincidence. Dylan uses old school movie quotes in Empire Burlesque and so on.

What I was hoping in this book by Britta Lee Shain was that she would talk more about Dylan and his Late night cable, VHS rental and watching habits. I think the prevalence of this media in the 80's was key to Dylan rediscovering old films using them in his paintings as well as creating music.

Goodnitesteve, let me be forthright. The Britta book is utterly ridiculous. I read it years ago when it was making the rounds and I remember laughing out loud.Half of the 'girlfriends' in LA were Dylan girlfriends, Britta seems to live in a vacuum in her book, when in fact shed been around the block several times before she 'bumped' into Ernie.You want to know what I think of the book? I think its way out of line for her to call Ernie, "Ernie".

She says this herself in the book so it's a bit more conscious than you say.

Bloomfields wife didnt write a book, we dont even know if that story is true. We really cant condemn others on what her version of events are. We can condemn her, tho, on what she claims she did and said.

LeftBanke - for someone who has not even read the current version of the book, you sure do seem to have a lot invested in it.

(I say current book, as she says around 2000? her draft was picked up - allegedly - by biographers and she claims she was 'outed'. To think that that document, which I think you suggest you have seen, is the same as the current book might be a mistake. I would have thought that a decade reflection on events might have resulted in a different volume. She seems to think so. Anyway, maybe read it, then criticize it? It would be like someone constantly critiquing the motives, or music, of someone who they only heard in rehearsal ten years ago.)

I'm not saying it is the best book ever, or that there are literary merits, nor that it not cashing in, etc, but to criticize and comment on something you've not even read (and especially when that criticism might be considered to border on misogyny, or at least a blanket dismissal of 'groupies') seems myopic.

Joined: Sat January 1st, 2011, 20:57 GMTPosts: 6839Location: Out in the West Texas town of El Paso

oh the ragman wrote:

LeftBanke - for someone who has not even read the current version of the book, you sure do seem to have a lot invested in it.

(I say current book, as she says around 2000? her draft was picked up - allegedly - by biographers and she claims she was 'outed'. To think that that document, which I think you suggest you have seen, is the same as the current book might be a mistake. I would have thought that a decade reflection on events might have resulted in a different volume. She seems to think so. Anyway, maybe read it, then criticize it? It would be like someone constantly critiquing the motives, or music, of someone who they only heard in rehearsal ten years ago.)

I'm not saying it is the best book ever, or that there are literary merits, nor that it not cashing in, etc, but to criticize and comment on something you've not even read (and especially when that criticism might be considered to border on misogyny, or at least a blanket dismissal of 'groupies') seems myopic.

LeftBanke - for someone who has not even read the current version of the book, you sure do seem to have a lot invested in it.

(I say current book, as she says around 2000? her draft was picked up - allegedly - by biographers and she claims she was 'outed'. To think that that document, which I think you suggest you have seen, is the same as the current book might be a mistake. I would have thought that a decade reflection on events might have resulted in a different volume. She seems to think so. Anyway, maybe read it, then criticize it? It would be like someone constantly critiquing the motives, or music, of someone who they only heard in rehearsal ten years ago.)

I'm not saying it is the best book ever, or that there are literary merits, nor that it not cashing in, etc, but to criticize and comment on something you've not even read (and especially when that criticism might be considered to border on misogyny, or at least a blanket dismissal of 'groupies') seems myopic.

Britta, is that you? Send me a autographed copy so I can read it. Just kidding, Im sure you arent Britta, but if you want me to read the new version send me a copy, as Im not going to buy it.Everything Ive read here seems to perfectly coincide with I remember from back then.

Britta had an affair with someone who had a wife, an official girlfriend, and several unofficial ones. Yes I dont think she was Snow White.I dont know how anyone can disagree she was a groupie, after carefully analyzing the matter and checking all the boxes.

Last edited by LeftBanke on Fri May 27th, 2016, 18:44 GMT, edited 2 times in total.

I dont see any reason to drive out there. I doubt that kind of book would be available at the library. Besides everything Ive read so far,written by people like you who have posted considerable portions of the account, is perfectly in sync with what I read back then.Maybe she should get Duke Robillard to back her on the book tour.

LeftBanke - surely your criticism would be better with the object of critique in your palms?

That's all.

You seem quite insightful, so it'd be good for you to make appropriate references and targeted points, rather than rely on a decade old memory, or what other people (some of whom also haven't read the book) think on this thread.

You see that, don't you?

As for groupies, you seem (correct me if I am wrong) to use the term in a pejorative sense. Whereas I like sentiments like these: "“Groupies” can be understood as an unapologetic celebration of how a coterie of self-liberated women ultimately chose to explore that complex, ancient idea—to see what happens when a person comes at beauty with beauty, when she gives herself over, entirely, to an abstraction."

LeftBanke - surely your criticism would be better with the object of critique in your palms?

That's all.

You seem quite insightful, so it'd be good for you to make appropriate references and targeted points, rather than rely on a decade old memory, or what other people (some of whom also haven't read the book) think on this thread.

You see that, don't you?

As for groupies, you seem (correct me if I am wrong) to use the term in a pejorative sense. Whereas I like sentiments like these: "“Groupies” can be understood as an unapologetic celebration of how a coterie of self-liberated women ultimately chose to explore that complex, ancient idea—to see what happens when a person comes at beauty with beauty, when she gives herself over, entirely, to an abstraction."

Anyway, I fully expect a weary barbed comment in response, so I'll leave it at that.

Lets keep it clean, we are on a music forum not on tour.

I would agree with you if I would have read any tidbit that would make me conclude the new one may supersede the old one, in a substantial manner. The only detail Im fuzzy about is whether Ernie was called Ernie on the Mk 1 version of the 'book'; also known as 'the document'.

I dont really read or subscribe to "The New Yorker" nor subscribe to its POV;I see it more likeliberating the object of their affection from the other women, but I have to admit that while I do not subscribe to your POV it is a legitimate one, that groupies are PC.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum